The Church of Our Saviour will discontinue its efforts to keep the Oatlands church and all litigation regarding the Oatlands church will conclude immediately. Our Saviour will lease the Oatlands church from the Diocese for up to five years, and retain the parish funds it has on hand. Our Saviour will use a significant portion of those funds for maintenance and much-needed repairs of the Oatlands church. At Our Saviour’s request, the congregation will also retain several memorial items.
As part of the settlement, the Church of Our Saviour will also voluntarily disaffiliate from any connection to the Convocation of Anglican Churches in North America (CANA), the Anglican District of Virginia (ADV), and the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). Lastly, Our Saviour has agreed that no bishop will visit the congregation without the permission of the Bishop of Virginia.
Isn’t there a logical non-sequitur here? The Church of Our Saviour will also voluntarily dis-affiliate … If it is voluntary then they do not have to do it and it is not required by the diocese. If, on the other hand, the diocese insists that this is part of the agreement, then it is not voluntary.
And the dis-assembly continues , peeling off the multi-layered fruit.
Lord Have Mercy
Grandmother
But this does offer some valuable intel.
They’ve given up — at least in some cases — the scorched earth policy on individual parishes, recognizing the reality which is that they themselves could not fill the parishes anyway.
So they’ve “settled” on a compromise in some cases — their real fear — which is in attempting to eliminate ACNA — which is their actual competition.
Good to see and note.
Wow — they really hate and fear ACNA.
It hard to see this as anything but a clear win for TEC. Not scorched earth, but divide an conquer. The parish has lost the building, and probably the use of it after 5 years. It needs the permission of TEC to even confirm new members, and is formally separated from others of similar belief. What WERE they thinking?
Well, TEC have surpassed themselves in Pittsburgh and Virginia. What diabolical tempter in 815 or Goodwin Proctor came up with this dirty trick? But as Sarah says, it demonstrates how much they hate and fear ACNA.
Good – what scumbags they again show themselves to be.
“Jesus wept”
Quite so, Sarah and Pageantmaster.
What I don’t understand, though, and perhaps other Virginian Anglicans or even a person at Church of Our Saviour could tell us, is why they agreed to this? Why not walk away from the building, rather than make this sort of agreement that requires them to deny who they are? If the answer to my question be, because they are being allowed to retain the parish funds they had on hand – isn’t the rejoinder in that case, but they aren’t really being allowed to retain the funds, because they have to use them to repair a church that the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia will continue to own?
I understand the desire to maintain continuity in locality. That’s important, and the Bible tells us that locality is important (else why all the biblical placenames that commemorate meetings with God?). But when maintenance of locality means denial of who you are, denial of visible, episcopal communion with other churches – I just don’t understand it.
It is clear that TEC’s strategy now is the destruction, or at least the mortal weakening, of ACNA.
Unless there is something lurking under the surface here that has not been reported (which may only be too true), this seems to me to be a double loss. They will likely eventually lose the building, and remain under the thumb of the Bishop of Virginia? Better to just walk away and stay true to your ties to ACNA, etc. That seems bizarre to me. There has to be something else here that isn’t being reported. I see no logical reason to lose on both issues.
There are significant differences from parish to parish in the
Diocese of Virginia with regard to departing groups. This is the first settlement. I would think the lawyers on both sides would be trying to find reasonable settlements before trial on property issues now scheduled for April. That there is a five-year lease element in this context may be indicative of arrangements that will be negotiated with other departing groups.
So the congregation keep all their funds and investments and TEC get a tiny, remote building with expensive upkeep?
But, MotherViolet, the congregation don’t keep all their funds and investments. And the expensive upkeep on the building will, at least for the next five years, be borne by the congregation, apparently as a proviso of the agreement.
Additionally, what is arguably the congregation’s greatest investment – their membership in CANA/ADV/ACNA – has to be given up, including their relationship with their bishop, in favor of the legal prelacy of the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia. (I can only call it prelacy, because there isn’t any pastoral oversight involved in the agreement’s subordination of the congregation to the bishop of the EDOV.)
I hope they have a month to month opt out clause…could be that the Bishop of Dio Virginia needs 5 years to find just the right Muslim buyer.
Intercessor
#9 NoVa Scout
Pull the other one. The same provisions regarding self-alienation from ACNA are coming up in this settlement as the Pittsburgh settlement. This has nothing to do with trial lawyers’ negotiations and every indication to being a cynical and rather disgusting policy worked out at the rotten centre of your church.
It is disgraceful, but typical of the way TEC manages to dive even below the expectations of any of us.
It is diabolical, but then it shows who your church management serves.
Let us review the bidding. The parish loses all claim to the real estate, they agree to pay rent to the diocese for up to 5 years, they use THEIR funds to repair the real estate so that it will be in pristine shape for the diocese to sell, and they agree to become a church “without a country”. I plan to sell them some Greek bonds. Statmann
So they keep parish funds — *IF* they stay there? And use them maintain a building they don’t own and forfeit their ability to associate with ACNA? Bull—-. Don’t make deals with KJS or Lucifer. What are these guys thinking?
It said they will lease the building “up to 5 years”. I hope the restriction on affiliations only applies while they remain in the building and that they find another suitable place to worship asap.
I don’t think I would agree to those restrictions otherwise. And I wouldn’t do so even then unless I had a plan for quickly relocating, in my hip pocket. At least the agreement avoids squabbling over vestments, prayer books and hymnals.
The Presiding Bishop the Convention of the Confederation of Episcopal Churches in the USA (aka ECUSA/TEC) will be visiting our diocese next month.
In fact, one of her whistle stops will be at a church only about 30 miles away from my home. I will not honor her deviant theology or her persecution of orthodox Anglicans with my presence.
Remember what she did via her proxy diocesan in Central New York to the orthodox Anglican congregation in Binghampton, New York. To acknowledge her leadership as being that of an actual Christian (she neither “walks the walk” nor “talks the talk”) would be an act of betrayal toward the orhtodox Anglicans whom she is at this very moment persecuting with law suits.
She and her accomplices could have and can act differently, but they have chosen not to.
Therefore I am shunning her pressence in our diocese.
I hope there is a secondary plan. For example, members can start contributing to a separate organization. Run down what ever existing funds are in the name of the congregation while staying in this location and saving up for another location under a different name. If the rector decides to talk to an ACNA bishop and follow his spiritual advice, who can stop him? If the ACNA bishop, performs confirmations in a nearby facility and the whole congregation attends, who can stop them. I hope the congregation is planning something like this.
One never achieves a settlement unless both sides see advantage to it, Pageantmaster (No.13). I did not understand the restrictions on affiliation in the Pittsburgh matter given that the Church property was (as I recall) being turned over in fee to the departing group. Here it makes some sense to me where the seceding faction is being allowed to lease the building for a period of time. Presumably, at the end of the lease it will revert to the Diocese.
Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. And he said to him, “All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me.”
Matthew 4:8-9
My money is on the congregation – in five years – being back in the fold of the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia. They have 5 years to repent of their sin of leaving the diocese in the first place….anyone willing to take this bet….
I must have missed something. How can giving up Acna and the like be part of a settlement agreement? Why agree to such a thing at all unless they don’t WANT to be part of ACNA – which does not seem to be the case. How can this be forced? This simply doesn’t make sense. Larry
If it is voluntary then they do not have to do it and it is not required by the diocese. If, on the other hand, the diocese insists that this is part of the agreement, then it is not voluntary.
Why agree to such a thing at all unless they don’t WANT to be part of ACNA – which does not seem to be the case. How can this be forced? This simply doesn’t make sense.
It is not actually forced. It is an agreement that both sides have voluntarily entered into. In exchange for dropping the lawsuit(s) against particular parishes, the parish voluntarily agrees to the terms set by TEC. This kind of thing is done all the time.
#23 Brian
[blockquote]This kind of thing is done all the time.[/blockquote]
Actually no, it is exceptional. Over here we would look at such a term entered into under duress to see if it was illegal or contrary to public policy, much as if we would in these cases:
1. “we will drop our lawsuit and you will divorce your wife”
2. “we will drop our lawsuit and you will murder Pageantmaster”
3. “we will drop our lawsuit and you will deny your God”
I wish someone from the parish would comment. But, we do know from past actions that DioVa orginally was going to negotiate seperation agreements with the churches that wanted to depart. They developed seperation guidelines and let John Guernsey’s Church follow them. Then the PB and DBB got involved. We also know from EC minutes last year that the PB is under pressure to rein in litigation expenses. We also know she leaves office in a year and 2/3. Putting all those together, maybe the church and diocese are anticipating a sale when KJS is no longer around? Maybe that’s why it says a lease for “up to” 5 years, meaning it could be for less than 5 years; i.e. 1 & 2/3 years. On another note–I am involved in a lot of mediations. People settle for lots of reasons, both rational and irrational. Many cases are settled just to stop the litigation and the attendant costs and stress. That may be what is going on here, for both sides.
This and the other similar settlements constitute an agreement to TECs claim of rightful ownership of the property.
It is as though the president of my neighborhood country club or the commanding officer of my military regiment decided he had the right to my home, but because he was a good guy, he would let me live in it if I paid him rent and upkeep and ceased membership in the homeowners assoc. and chamber of commerce and certain political organizations.
TECs presumption of ownership of parish property and these agreements are an abuse/violation of property/trust and of the freedom of conscience, religion/belief, association and speech.
OK; now I’m totally confused. I just read an article from The Wash Post quoting the rector, the Rev. Elijah White, as saying the congregation will immediatley start looking for another space to worship in. Bueler? Anybody?
No. 22 (and others),
After sleeping on this, I think I may understand what the lawyers were doing here in regards to this clause about giving up ACNA affiliation. I think they were hedging their bets that the Virginia law concerning a theological division having occurred within TEC that would let them continue as a sovereign entity. That is not panning out as clearly as they had hoped.
I am wondering if the thinking on the Parish lawyers part is to simply abrogate the existing entity that is Church of our Saviour and over the period of the next 3 to 5 years, create an entirely new entity (basically with the same people) within ACNA that is completely free and clear of any threads of TEC. That would never have been allowed straight up if they simply tried to dissolve the religious entity and simply say they were a new congregation.
I think by pulling the trigger on this now and coming to an agreement before the Fairfax trial (and subsequent appeals) comes to fruition, they have a way of extricating themselves. They have an out now and some breathing room to begin to plan to create a new entity after the 5 year lease. (As was noted above, the wording is “up to 5 years”-which is ambiguous and suggests it might not actually be five years.)
I think it would’ve made more sense if these people had established a separate building fund….an escrow account without naming the congregation per se….for the purchase of property and the erection of a new church building, while spending down the money on hand during the five year lease period; thus leaving the diocese with a small and empty building…..a millstone.
Actually no, it is exceptional. Over here we would look at such a term entered into under duress to see if it was illegal or contrary to public policy, much as if we would in these cases:
US law looks at the same things: duress, illegal, or violation of public policy. It is hardly analogous to murder. Nor is denying ++Duncan the same thing as denying your God (unless this is a new teaching of ACNA 😉 )
The closest argument you have is divorce. While marriage has public policy implications, denominational affiliation does not.
Another approach, Cennydd, one that shares some elements of your proposal, would have been to leave when the decision to leave was made and build a new church with funds raised after departure. If this had been the controlling principle of departures from the Church over the past few years, think how much better off those who chose to leave and those who chose not to would have been.
Whatever the truth, this is TE at its most unsavory – legal or not. This is brutal treatment, and I hope that C is right, and that a phoenix will rise from the ashes of TECs darkness visible. Larry
insidious. that is how they will try to bring down ACNA or at least cripple it to the point where it’s irrelevant. i pray it won’t work.
too bad people are falling for it.